Contentious connective action: a new kind of life-political association for problematizing how expert systems operate

ABSTRACT

Neoliberalism and populism both challenge the idea that democratic politics is of and by ‘the people.’ Neoliberalism suggests technocracy as the way ahead for nudging laypeople to do the right things. Populism appeals to the morality of an exceptional leader required for tumbling ‘the system’ and make the home of ‘We the People’ whole again. Both positions consider laypeople like clay to be formed in their own image. The logic of contentious connective action is a direct response to this political degradation of the layactor. Without laypeople being able chronically to problematize how things are done by expert systems, there can be no real democracy. Hence, it is about time we bring the lifeworld with its capable and knowledgeable laypeople back into the fold. Technological development has made it possible for the lifeworld to attain global and not just local significance. Its spontaneous activities in local time-space can now connect globally, enabling worldwide demonstrations in the name of ‘we the 99%.’

KEYWORDS:

• Politics
• web 2.0
• democracy
• connective action
• neoliberalism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Henrik Bang is Professor in Governance at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis (IGPA), University of Canberra (UC). He has come to UC from the University of Copenhagen, Department of Political Science. Henrik writes extensively within the fields of governance and political participation, and has contributed significantly to the international debate with his concepts of Everyday Makers, Expert Citizens, culture governance and policy-politics. He has quite a lot of experience with applying his thinking to public debates due to his many years as director of COS (Centre for Organization and Management) in the Copenhagen Business School, and as co-director of MODINET (Centre of Media and Democracy in the Network Society) at the University of Copenhagen, Amager in the Department of Media, Cognition and Communication [email: [email protected]].

Max Halupka is an expert on contemporary forms of political participation, where he specialises in the relationship between technology and politics. An IGPA Research Fellow, Max has published work on: political communication, new forms of political participation, internet activism, and The Church of Scientology. Max teaches public policy for the Institute's Graduate Certificate and MPA programmes [email: [email protected]].

Notes

1 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.7.seven.html.

2 Flyvbjerg et al regards phronesis as linked to collective action which we think is unfortunate, because Aristotle surely did not have a concept of collective action, and did not separate the personal from the political.

3 See, for example: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=%27the±occupy±wall±street±movement±and±neoliberalism%27&btnG=&hl=da&as_sdt=0%2C5.

4 http://occupywallst.org/about/from28/03/2015.

5 https://www.micahmwhite.com/esquire-micahwhite-influential-under-35s.